[darcs-users] peer to peer darcs
Andrew Pimlott
andrew at pimlott.net
Thu Aug 5 18:41:08 UTC 2004
On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 01:13:18PM -0400, S. Alexander Jacobson wrote:
> So each user maintains two repositories and does a
> "send" everytime they update their working repos
> and a darcs get from the local copy of shared
> everytime it is updated?
>
> So I guess the question is why do people want
> minimal context?
Only to cover cases where eg some early patch gets indefinitely delayed,
while later patches come through.
> My assumption is that darcs can handle patches
> that arrive in the following order/contexts:
>
> A1 (BASE)
> B1 (BASE)
> C1 (A1) -- BASE is implicit
> D1 (B1) -- BASE is implicit
> E1 (C1) -- A1 is implicit
>
> So A1 and B1 are modifications of the same
> context. Effectively so is (C1 A1) and (D1 B1).
>
> Or does not having minimal context mean that B1
> will fail because A1 has already claimed to be the
> only thing that can follow (BASE)?
No, I think you have it right (if I understand your example). As long
as you have (at least) the context, the patch can always be applied.
Only if you (eg) get C1 but not A1 will you have a problem.
Andrew
More information about the darcs-users
mailing list